1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

Since a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party has res judicata effect, where a party who has received the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party to the previous suit identical to the previous suit in favor of one party to the previous suit, the subsequent suit

However, in exceptional cases, if it is obvious that the ten-year period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is a benefit in a lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the claim for loans under subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1850, Nov. 10, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 1850, Nov. 10, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 1850, Sep. 7, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 20060, Feb. 23, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 200457, Feb. 23, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 20090, Nov. 10, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 2000, Feb. 23, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 200655, Feb. 23, 204).

The instant lawsuit brought a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking damages for delay included in the final and conclusive judgment for the interruption of extinctive prescription. In principle, there is no benefit in the protection of rights. As long as the instant lawsuit was brought on May 24, 2019 on December 23, 2004, ten years after the said judgment became final and conclusive, the benefit of a lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription exceptionally permissible pursuant to the foregoing legal doctrine is not recognized.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2. If so, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.